城市空地种树与建更多住房孰更重要

The response addresses the question with a clear position favouring tree planting and covers several relevant main ideas, but the arguments are unevenly developed and sometimes drift into unclear or loosely connected claims.

There is a visible overall structure with paragraphing and basic linkers, but progression within paragraphs is often mechanical and some sentences connect illogically, making the argument hard to follow.

The response attempts some ambitious vocabulary, but frequent imprecise or inappropriate word choices, such as 'validate botanical diversity' and 'reduce the contents of antioxidants', reduce clarity and accuracy.

A range of structures is attempted, but recurring errors in verb forms, infinitive construction and agreement reduce clarity. Examples include “helps us to for the air filtration”, “also remembering” without a finite verb, and “These incredible outcome helps”.

The response addresses the question with a clear position favouring tree planting, develops main ideas on both sides, and offers some relevant examples, though a few ideas are thinly supported or imprecisely expressed.

Paragraphing is logical and progression is broadly clear, but some cohesive devices are mechanical or misused, such as 'On the flipper side', and a few sentences connect loosely.

There is an attempt at less common vocabulary, including 'afforestation' and 'consequential', but errors like 'omniscient', 'bygones', and 'more dreams' in place of trees obscure meaning at times, fitting a limited but flexible attempt with frequent inaccuracy.

The response uses a mix of complex and simple structures with generally adequate control, though subject–verb agreement and incomplete clauses cause errors, as in “planting trees give” and “if only a few buildings in the town”.

The response presents arguments for both housing and trees, with relevant discussion of urban population pressure and access to nature. It favours trees, but does not directly rebut the housing case or fully explain why the benefits of trees deserve greater priority; the conclusion leaves the degree of preference imprecise.

Ideas progress logically across clearly organised paragraphs with effective cohesion devices, although some transitions, such as the link into the housing argument, feel slightly mechanical.

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise with good use of less common items like 'deteriorating sanitary conditions' and 'demoralising', despite occasional awkward collocations such as 'In my agreement'.

A wide range of complex structures is used with generally good control, and errors are minor and rarely impede understanding.

The response addresses the task with a clear position and extended, supported main ideas, though the argument about demolishing residential areas partially undermines the housing comparison and shows uneven development.

Progression is generally logical with clear paragraphing and cohesive devices, but linking is sometimes mechanical and the second body paragraph's internal logic is briefly confusing.

There is a sufficient range of topic-related vocabulary such as carbon footprint, botanical gardens, and aesthetic look, with mostly appropriate usage and only occasional imprecise phrasing.

A variety of complex structures is used with good flexibility, while minor errors in articles and phrasing occur without impeding communication.

The response consistently favours trees and develops several relevant benefits, but it does not clearly establish their priority over housing. The brief housing concession, unsupported “only solution” claim and new disaster-protection claim leave important reasoning underdeveloped.

Ideas are organised logically with clear paragraphing and a range of cohesive devices, though linking is occasionally mechanical and some points repeat earlier content.

Vocabulary includes useful topic-specific language such as urban air pollution, tree shade and living standards. However, “natural combats” is inaccurate, and wording such as “promotes the aesthetics” and leaves absorbing dust lacks precision.

The essay uses complex structures, including relative clauses and a not only ... but also construction, with generally good control. Minor problems include the unhyphenated modifier “urbanisation induced” and awkward attachment of “to improve” in the conclusion.